Jarman v. Jarman
| Decision Date | 24 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 723DC365,723DC365 |
| Parties | Alton Lee JARMAN v. Betty Dawson JARMAN (new Betty Dawson Jarman Keltz). |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Cecil D. May, New Bern, for plaintiff appellee.
Robert G. Bowers, New Bern, for defendant appellant.
Since the only exception brought forward on this appeal is to the order awarding custody of the child to the plaintiff, our consideration is limited to the question of whether the findings made by the trial judge support the order and whether error of law appears on the face of the record. Cox v. Cox, 246 N.C. 528, 98 S.E.2d 879 (1957); Stancil v. Stancil, 255 N.C. 507, 121 S.E.2d 882 (1961); Prince v. Prince, 7 N.C.App. 638, 173 S.E.2d 567 (1970).
In determining whether the findings support the order we refer first to the applicable statute, G.S. § 50--13.2(a) which provides:
'An order for custody of a minor child entered pursuant to this section shall award the custody of such child to such person, agency, organization or institution as will, in the opinion of the judge, best promote the interest and welfare of the child.'
'This statutory directive merely codified the rule which had been many times announced by the North Carolina Supreme Court to the effect that in custody cases the welfare of the child is the polar star by which the court's decision must ever be guided.' In re Custody of Pitts, 2 N.C.App. 211, 162 S.E.2d 524 (1968). In applying these legal principles to the facts of a particular case, the trial judge is vested with a wide discretion for he has an opportunity to observe the parties and the witnesses, and his decision ought not to be upset on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. In re Custody of Mason, 13 N.C.App. 334, 185 S.E.2d 433 (1971); In re Custody of Pitts, Supra.
It is clear from the findings of fact made by Judge Phillips why he concluded that the best interest and welfare of the child required that the child remain in the custody of her father. The findings reflect the fact that the consent order with the same arrangements with the paternal grandmother had been completely satisfactory and had served the best interest and welfare of the child for more than two years. Although his honor's findings do indicate that the circumstances of the mother have changed since she consented to the order awarding custody of the child to the father, and that she has established a home in Norfolk, Virginia, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Donna W.
... ... Falls v. Falls, 52 N.C.App. 203, 278 S.E.2d 546 ... (1981) (abuse of discretion); Jarman v. Jarman, 14 ... N.C.App. 531, 188 S.E.2d 647, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 622, 190 ... S.E.2d 465 (1972) (error of law on the face of the record); ... ...
-
Donna W., In re
...857, 858 (1980) (abuse of discretion); Falls v. Falls, 52 N.C.App. 203, 278 S.E.2d 546 (1981) (abuse of discretion); Jarman v. Jarman, 14 N.C.App. 531, 188 S.E.2d 647, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 622, 190 S.E.2d 465 (1972) (error of law on the face of the record); Miller v. Miller, 305 N.W.2d 66......
-
Falls v. Falls, 8010DC502
...appeal. Shepperd v. Shepperd, 38 N.C.App. 712, 248 S.E.2d 871 (1978), cert. denied, 296 N.C. 586, 254 S.E.2d 34 (1979); Jarmon v. Jarmon, 14 N.C.App. 531, 188 S.E.2d 647, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 622, 190 S.E.2d 465 (1972); Brooks v. Brooks; In re Custody of Stancil; Hinkle v. CHILD SUPPORT (......
-
Morris v. Morris
...evidence and are binding on appeal. Anderson Chevrolet/Olds v. Higgins, 57 N.C.App. 650, 292 S.E.2d 159 (1982); Jarman v. Jarman, 14 N.C.App. 531, 188 S.E.2d 647, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 622, 190 S.E.2d 465 (1972); Jackson v. Collins, 9 N.C.App. 548, 176 S.E.2d 878 (1970). We therefore do no......